A condensed version
of this page is in myOverview-FAQ.I recommend reading
it first because
it's shorter so you can get quick overview of the ideas, and
because after initially writing both pages I've been more diligent
in revising/supplementing the Overview-FAQ (especially in Sections 3-7) so it currently includes
some
ideas
that are
not in this page, but some other ideas are
only in this page.

1A. Christian views of
creation — who, when, and how?

Is there only one Christian
view of creation?Some Christians claim that a
belief in young-earth creation is necessary for correct Christian doctrine, although
it isn't necessary for salvation. They acknowledge only two
views of creation: 1) a Christian young-earth view, and 2) an
old-earth "evolutionary" view that is inherently atheistic, even
though some Christians have been fooled into accepting it. This "two views" perspective
is popular in some churches, among some non-Christians, and — due
to its "sound bite simplicity" and its value for producing
dramatic conflict — in the media. But is it accurate?

Three Views and Three
QuestionsMost members of ASA think that
three basic creation views, plus variations, are compatible with a Judeo-Christian
doctrine of theistic creation:In young-earth
creation, everything in the universe was miraculously
created in a 144-hour period less than 10,000 years ago. Later,
most of the earth's geology and fossil record were formed in a
global flood. / In a variation that is less common,
the earth is young but the universe is old.In progressive
creation, also called old-earth
creation, at various times during a long history of nature
(spanning billions of years) God used miraculous-appearing action
to create. There are two kinds of progressive creation: one
proposesindependent creations "from
scratch" so a new species would not necessarily have any relationships
with previously existing species; another proposescreations
by modification of the genetic material (by changing,
adding, or deleting it) for some members (or all members) of
an existing species.In evolutionary
creation, also called theistic evolution, natural
evolution was God's method of creation, with the universe designed
so physical structures (galaxies, stars, planets) and complex biological
organisms (bacteria, fish, dinosaurs, humans) would naturally evolve.

Let's look at three questions:WHO — creation by
God? Is our world designed and created by God, with the ideas-and-actions
of God producing the material substance and characteristics of nature,
and actively governing the history of nature? A theist says
YES, affirming that God created our world and is active in
our world. By contrast, an atheist denies
the existence of God, a deist denies the
ongoing activities of God, and a pantheist claims
the universe has become GodWHEN — age of universe? Is
the universe (including the earth) young or old? Is its age thousands
of years, or billions of years?HOW — method
of creation? Did the formative history of nature include
only divine natural-appearing action, or also some divine
miraculous-appearing action?

These questions, when answered,
define three views of creation:who? all three views say "creation
by God" so each is a creationist view, despite the fact that — due
to an unfortunate abuse of vocabulary — many people think "creationism" refers
to only young-earth views;when? young-earth creation
says "thousands of years," but "billions of years" is the
answer for progressive creation and evolutionary creation;how? evolutionary
creation says "only natural-appearing creation," but
progressive creation and young-earth creation propose some miraculous-appearing
creation.

In addition, these monotheistic
views are challenged by those (including atheists, deists, polytheists,
and pantheists) who propose other views of origins, and by agnostics
who — instead of just saying "I don't know yet" — claim "we
cannot know."

Each of us has a worldview — our
view of the world, used for living in the world — that includes our
views of nature and science, and
much more. Some groups of people tend to have a "collective
worldview."As individuals and as groups, we want our ideas (and
actions) to be logically consistent, so we adjust our ideas (and actions)
in an effort
to achieve consistency. This leads to mutual influences, at the levels
of individuals and groups, between worldviews and science.Science is influenced by worldviews
and related factors, operating in a variety of ways (psychological, sociological,
pragmatic,...) that include personal
desires (for
self-esteem, respect from others, security, adventure, money, power,...), group
pressures, opinions of authorities (who are acknowledged due to expertise,
personality, and/or power) and cultural thinking habits, metaphysical
worldviews (about
the nature of reality and purpose of life), and ideological principles (about "the
way things should be" in society). These factors interact with
each other, and operate in a complex social context involving individuals
and groups,
the scientific community, and society as a
whole.Worldviews are influenced by
science, which is a "cultural authority" in the modern world,
mainly because it has been so useful for understanding nature and
developing technology. Due to this authority, science influences
many people's views of "the way the world is, and why."

As an example of influence,
consider the effects of religious beliefs on ideas about origins:An atheist or
deist has no scientific freedom, since only one
conclusion — a natural
Total Evolution — is
acceptable. An open-minded flexible agnostic (who
says "I haven't decided yet") can have freedom, but a rigid
agnostic (who wants to remain agnostic) will want to reject any theory
with theistic implications. A non-theist believer
(in new-age pantheism,...) will prefer a nontheistic theory and interpretation.A Judeo-Christian theist has
options: young-earth creation, and old-earth progressive creation or evolutionary
creation. In principle, these options can let a theist follow the
evidence-and-logic of science to any conclusion about the "when and how" of
creation. In practice, however, theology (interacting with other factors)
may lead a theist to believe that the earth must be young, or evolution must
be false, or evolution must be true. { Is
young-earth belief necessary for a Christian? and What
can a Christian believe about evolution? }A theistic
science is based on the principle that theists
should use all they have reasons to believe, including their theology, when
doing
science,
when
constructing and evaluating theories. But theistic science, using a Christian
worldview as a foundation, is not a single way of thinking, because
our differences — when interpreting the Bible (in theology) and nature
(in science) and combining these interpretations, and when thinking about God's
actions in the world and in science — can lead to different ideas about
God, scripture, nature, and science.

two opinions:• We should recognize the influence
of
cultural-personal
factors, and — to make science more effective in our search for truth — we
should try to minimize these biasing influences. We should want
scientific evaluations to be objective, based only on evidence and logic. One
strategy for "recognizing and minimizing" is to imagine the results of idealized
evaluation (without
cultural-personal
influences), analogous to the way Newton imagined idealized motion (without
friction). This strategy can be useful, even though the results of imagining
will be influenced by our biases. { But
even
if scientists are biased, maybe "the way they hope the world is" corresponds
to "the way the world really is" and is thus true. Therefore,
a biased conclusion is not necessarily a false conclusion. }• We should recognize that "science
is influenced by worldviews and other factors" without
getting carried away to silly extremes. We
should challenge postmodern radical relativists when they claim that cultural
influences destroy the credibility of science, and that if scientists cannot
claim certainty, they can claim nothing. { Two examples are
overly skeptical
critics of old-earth
science and intelligent design. }

Why
are so
many so confident?One motivation for conflict
arises from a noble quest for personal consistency:Each of us has
a worldview that includes
our ideas (based on theology, science,...) about nature and its history. We
want our ideas to be logically consistent, so we adjust our
ideas in an effort to achieve personal consistency.Eventually, most of us become satisfied
with the quality and consistency of our own ideas. One result is that
vigorous advocates for every view of origins, ranging from young-earth creation
to atheistic
evolution, are extremely confident in thinking they have The Answer. Those
with
other
views seem to be obviously wrong — because their ideas don't
fit logically into the framework of our ideas — so we may
conclude that our opponents
are either deluding themselves or intentionally trying to deceive others.In his book, The Battle of Beginnings, Del
Ratzsch explains that because "the popular caricatures
reigning in this area... make confident choice appear supremely simple" there
is a tendency "for favorite ideas — on both
sides — to be credited within their respective camps with a status they
really do not deserve. Indeed, each side can see the case as so utterly
closed that the very existence of
opponents generates near bafflement."While watching "hot
debates about origins" we often see sharply contrasting views about
the foundations of rationality, about the kind of arguments that are considered
rational and persuasive, or even allowable. When two sides cannot even
agree about the ground rules of arguing, we shouldn't be surprised when they "talk
past each other." Too often, the zealously vocal leaders on one
side are aggressively comparing their own apples with the other's oranges,
and are listening in French when the other side is speaking Italian. Similarly,
some on the other side are enthusiastically praising their own oranges, and
are listening in Italian (so they hear their opponents speaking gibberish)
due to the mismatch
of idea-frameworks. In this sad situation, do you think improved understanding
might be useful?

Understanding
and RespectDel Ratzsch describes a common "us
against them" mode of thinking in which many people, from all perspectives, "see
the case as so utterly closed that the very existence of opponents generates
near bafflement." And he encourages us — if we
want to improve the quality of conversation — to improve our understanding,
to "carefully study, with an open mind, the
evidence and logical counter-arguments presented by opponents, in an attempt
to accurately understand the logical support for other positions and why
someone might hold these positions, to see what things look like from another
point of view." He wants us to listen and learn.I
agree. In fact, I've been using this approach — which is the educational
philosophy in the website
you're now reading — since being inspired by a high school teacher. He
often held debates in class, and Monday
he
would
skillfully convince
us
that "his
side of the issue" was correct, but Tuesday he made the other side look
just as good. We soon learned
that,
in
order
to
get accurate
understanding, we should get the best information and arguments that all
sides of an issue can claim as support. After we did this and we understood
more accurately and thoroughly, we usually recognized that even when we have
valid reasons to prefer one position, people on other sides of an issue may also
have good reasons, both intellectual and ethical, for believing as they do, so
we learned respectful attitudes.But respect does not require agreement. You
can respect someone and their views, yet criticize their views, which you have
evaluated based on evidence, logic, and values. The intention of our
teacher, and the conclusion of his students, was not a postmodern relativism. The
goal was a rational exploration and evaluation
of ideas in a search for truth.

Distortion
and ConflictHelping you search for truth
is the goal in this educational website. We hope it will help you
avoid unintentional distortions, because you'll have the knowledge
you need to describe your opponents' views more accurately. Sometimes,
however, in the heat of argument we slip into a "debating mode" and
are just trying to win. But with the motivation that comes from
respect — for people, and for the principle of intellectual
honesty — hopefully more of us will choose to avoid constructing
weak "strawmen" that are intentional distortions of
opposing positions.But even when we try to understand
and respect those who disagree with us, the mere fact of disagreement can lead
to conflict. The intensity of conflict (and associated
emotion) is often increased by the practical importance of the issues being
debated,
as
when
we're thinking about potential
applications in public education.In some situations, instead of
avoiding conflict you may decide it's best to state your opposition to ideas
being expressed, or policies being proposed. But in situations where
conflict seems worthwhile, we can disagree with
respect, in a way that is more enjoyable and is more likely to be productive. And
sometimes a better outcome, with greater good for a greater number of people,
can be
achieved
through
a
willingness
to look for common ground, make reciprocal concessions, and cooperate in
a search for a mutually beneficial win-win solution.

1D. What are ASA's views about
creation,
evolution, and design?

Positions of ASA"As
an organization, the ASA does not take a position when there is honest disagreement
between Christians
on an issue. We are committed to providing an open forum where controversies
can be discussed without fear of unjust condemnation. Legitimate differences
of opinion among Christians who have studied both the Bible and science are freely
expressed within the Affiliation in a context of Christian love and concern for
truth." (the preface
to ASA's Statement
of Faith)"ASA has no offical
position on the "when and how" of creation, but when we ask
"who" our position is clear: "Creation
is not a controversial question. I
have no hesitancy in affirming, ‘we believe in creation,’ for every
ASA member. The Biblical doctrine of creation is one of the richest doctrines
revealed to us by God. It reveals to us that the God who loves us is
also the God who created us and all things; at once it establishes the
relationship between the God of religious faith and the God of physical reality.
... We
believe in creation. It is unthinkable for a Christian to do otherwise. (Richard
Bube, writing as editor of the ASA journal
in 1971)"

Actions of ASAIn August 2005 the new executive director of ASA,
Randy Isaac, explained that ASA is committed to careful studies of scripture
and nature, in a pursuit of quality in theology and science: "The
ASA policy of neutrality... does not mean wishy-washy relativism. ... We
have a strong platform with two planks: We have a strong statement of faith...
and a commitment to integrity in science. ... The role of ASA is to encourage
and enable dialogue, in an atmosphere of trust and respect, about the honest
differences regarding these two key planks."He is explaining why neutrality
is not passivity, and even though ASA does not advocate a conclusion,
we do enthusiastically endorse a process of respectful discussion,
so we can better understand the similarities and differences in our views
of theology and science, so we can learn from each other, and about each
other.Since 1949, the ASA journal has provided
an open forum with a variety of views about origins. Since
1994, similar forums have been developing in the ASA Website, including the
part of it (for whole-person education) you're
reading, which includes a disclaimer about our multi-position forum: "You'll
find links to resource-pages expressing a wide range of views, which don't
necessarily represent the views of the American Scientific Affiliation."Our journal and websites are
educational resources, and are not declarations of policy. The
ASA won't tell you what to conclude, but we will provide educational resources
so you can make an informed evaluation and reach your own conclusions.

Here are some other actions
of ASA in the past two decades:In 1986, responding to the
first edition of Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of
Sciences (1984), ASA published Teaching Science in a Climate of Controversy:
A View from the American Scientific Affiliation. This 48-page booklet
did not take a position on evolution. It did encourage a logical process
of open-minded scientific evaluation, willing to ask questions about evolution
and to consider intermediate positions, not just the extreme positions of
young-earth creation and atheistic evolution. It described the climate
of controversy that unfortunately exists, and explained how a teacher can "teach
with openness while upholding standards of scientific integrity."In 1991 the ASA Executive Council — motivated
by a desire "to promote excellence and integrity in
science education as well as in science" — adopted the resolution, A
Voice for Evolution as Science.In 2000 the ASA Creation Commission
released a Statement on Creation summarizing general creation
principles and four specific positions — three views of creation
(young earth, old earth,
evolutionary) plus intelligent design.

Are we creationists?The 1991 resolution of
ASA recommends that "the teaching of...
evolutionary biology should include: forceful presentation of
well-established scientific data and conclusions; clear distinction
between evidence and inference; candid discussion of unsolved
problems and open questions." Does a willingness
to discuss problems and questions mean we are creationists? The
answer is "yes and no" because it depends on how creationism is
defined. YES. All members of
ASA are Christians, so we all believe that God designed, created, and sustains
natural process, and (sometimes or always) guides it.But how did God create? There
is disagreement when we ask, "did God design the universe so it
would be totally self-assembling by natural process?" Some
members of ASA are evolutionary creationists who think natural evolution
was God's method of creation, but some think occasional miraculous-appearing
divine action was necessary (*) and
it was used by God during the formative history of nature. Jack
Haas, editor of the main ASA Website, says "the
ASA has no official position on evolution; its members hold a diversity
of views with varying degrees of intensity." {* Maybe
a universe designed for optimal operation would not be totally self-assembling. }NO. If a creationist believes
the earth is young, then most ASA members are not "creationists" because
most of us think there is a wide variety of scientific evidence strongly
indicating that the earth and universe are billions of years old.

Whole-Person Education
for Science and FaithThe website you're reading is
designed to help you learn effectively in two ways: we'll
provide a coherent overview of important ideas, to help you quickly understand
the ideas and their relationships; and to help you explore more deeply,
we'll link to pages that examine the ideas and relationships in more depth.We've searched the web and have
selected high-quality pages that will help you learn quickly and well. But
our selectivity is not censorship, and for controversial issues the range
of views will be wide. We want to give you accurate information about
a wide range of positions, by letting representatives of each perspective
clearly express their own views and criticize other views. Exploring this area can be an exciting
adventure for you, because the awesome creation of God is wonderful and exciting,
and because there is "intellectual drama" in the conflict of ideas. We
won't always agree, and this will make it interesting for you. But we
can make the process of agreeing (about many things) and
disagreeing (about a few things) more enjoyable and productive. Consistent with our Christian
worldview, we want to use productive communication — in an effort to
achieve our goals of improved understanding and mutual respect — in our
search for truth and in our personal interactions.

A
DISCLAIMER:
The views in this page don't necessarily represent views of the American
Scientific Affiliation. It is written
for ASA but is
not the ASA-FAQ, as explained in the FAQ-homepage.

Other pages in the 8-page set are in the right
sidebar above.

This page, written by Craig Rusbult (editor of "Whole-Person
Education" website),
is an "editorial" that doesn't claim to speak for ASA, as
explained above.
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/views.htm

This website for Whole-Person Education has TWO KINDS OF LINKS:
anITALICIZED LINK keeps you inside a page, moving you to
another part of it, and
a NON-ITALICIZED LINK opens another page. Both keep everything inside this window,
so your browser's BACK-button will always take you back to where you were.